Report: Stephen Breyer to retire from Supreme Court

[Roy H.]

Presumably that’s because he doesn’t want to face a Republican Senate during his confirmation hearings.  That’s probably overblown, though, unless Biden is going to appoint an extremist.  Any mainstream nominee will get at bare minimum three to five Republican votes, and probably more.

[Celtics2021]

I don’t know what you mean by that being overblown.  There is zero evidence that McConnell would even bring a nominee to vote if he’s majority leader again.  It worked for him last time.

[jambr380]

It will be cool to see if the Rs can push this off 3 years instead of just the 1 they did with Obama/Garland. But at least the Rs were able to push through their choice with like a month to spare.

Good choice by Breyer - and honestly what RBG should have done. Sucks that we live in such a partisan world that we need to think about these things, but when Trump gets 3 justices in 4 years - including the most hypocritical decision I have seen in my lifetime - you really can't leave this to chance.

[seancally]

Could do away with this retirement bonanza altogether by limiting how long justices can serve on the bench.

[gift]

Could do away with this retirement bonanza altogether by limiting how long justices can serve on the bench.

Yes. I've said before that every justice has a term limit, it's just undetermined and sometimes unpredictable. Why not make it more predictable?

[Rondo9]

It will be cool to see if the Rs can push this off 3 years instead of just the 1 they did with Obama/Garland. But at least the Rs were able to push through their choice with like a month to spare.

Good choice by Breyer - and honestly what RBG should have done. Sucks that we live in such a partisan world that we need to think about these things, but when Trump gets 3 justices in 4 years - including the most hypocritical decision I have seen in my lifetime - you really can't leave this to chance.

It's politics, hypocrisy is synonymous with the word.

[blink]

Could do away with this retirement bonanza altogether by limiting how long justices can serve on the bench.

+1

[Roy H.]

I don’t know what you mean by that being overblown.  There is zero evidence that McConnell would even bring a nominee to vote if he’s majority leader again.  It worked for him last time.

I don't think he would.  He'd be replacing a liberal with another liberal, keeping it at a 5-3-1 split.  At some point, these precedents catch up with a Party.  A day will come (2024 or 2026?) when we have a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

[Celtics2021]

I don’t know what you mean by that being overblown.  There is zero evidence that McConnell would even bring a nominee to vote if he’s majority leader again.  It worked for him last time.

I don't think he would.  He'd be replacing a liberal with another liberal, keeping it at a 5-3-1 split.  At some point, these precedents catch up with a Party.  A day will come (2024 or 2026?) when we have a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

He’s already said that he would.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-block-biden-supreme-court-nominee-2024-gop-controls-senate

[Roy H.]

I don’t know what you mean by that being overblown.  There is zero evidence that McConnell would even bring a nominee to vote if he’s majority leader again.  It worked for him last time.

I don't think he would.  He'd be replacing a liberal with another liberal, keeping it at a 5-3-1 split.  At some point, these precedents catch up with a Party.  A day will come (2024 or 2026?) when we have a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

He’s already said that he would.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-block-biden-supreme-court-nominee-2024-gop-controls-senate

Well, that's in 2024.  McConnell can at least stand by his "no confirmation in an election year if the President is of the opposite party" standard.

I think that's a lot harder to do if McConnell's majority wanted to run out the clock from January 2023 until January 2025.

[Celtics2021]

I don’t know what you mean by that being overblown.  There is zero evidence that McConnell would even bring a nominee to vote if he’s majority leader again.  It worked for him last time.

I don't think he would.  He'd be replacing a liberal with another liberal, keeping it at a 5-3-1 split.  At some point, these precedents catch up with a Party.  A day will come (2024 or 2026?) when we have a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

He’s already said that he would.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-block-biden-supreme-court-nominee-2024-gop-controls-senate

Well, that's in 2024.  McConnell can at least stand by his "no confirmation in an election year if the President is of the opposite party" standard.

I think that's a lot harder to do if McConnell's majority wanted to run out the clock from January 2023 until January 2025.

I don’t think it would be difficult for McConnell at all.  He both stalled confirmation for 9 months in 2016 and got one through in weeks, despite a pandemic requiring senators to quarantine, in 2020.  If he could get the Court to 9-0, I’m quite sure he would.

[Moranis]

If you really want to depoliticize it the easiest way is to make them 18 year teams where 1 term expires ever odd numbered year.  That way every President gets 2 or 4 nominees to the Court.  If someone dies mid-term, then that person is replaced for the rest of the term by the then current President.  If the remaining term is more than 5 years, that person can't get re-nominated, if it is less than 5, then the then current President can re-nominate if they wish or pick someone else.  So no one will serve more than 23 years.  Since both parties know this happens, the rush to get younger and more radical, and play games with nominations won't be nearly as likely to happen, since every 2 years a seat will open.

[Neurotic Guy]

I don’t know what you mean by that being overblown.  There is zero evidence that McConnell would even bring a nominee to vote if he’s majority leader again.  It worked for him last time.

I don't think he would.  He'd be replacing a liberal with another liberal, keeping it at a 5-3-1 split.  At some point, these precedents catch up with a Party.  A day will come (2024 or 2026?) when we have a Republican president and a Democrat Senate.

He’s already said that he would.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-block-biden-supreme-court-nominee-2024-gop-controls-senate

Well, that's in 2024.  McConnell can at least stand by his "no confirmation in an election year if the President is of the opposite party" standard.

I think that's a lot harder to do if McConnell's majority wanted to run out the clock from January 2023 until January 2025.

I don’t think it would be difficult for McConnell at all.  He both stalled confirmation for 9 months in 2016 and got one through in weeks, despite a pandemic requiring senators to quarantine, in 2020.  If he could get the Court to 9-0, I’m quite sure he would.

He is undeniably unscrupulous and that has made him the most consequential politician of the 21st century (Trump's impact on democracy and tribal division notwithstanding).  McConnell has done his job brilliantly if not at times shamelessly.  For that, social conservatives are likely elated at the prospect of Mitch doing it again.   No doubt that you are correct C2021, McConnell doesn't have a bone in his body that would cause him to think that there is a problem that SCOTUS massively overrepresents the social ideology of a segment of Americans. 

The Supreme Court was not supposed to be this political, not that politics has never played a role, but all we need to do is look at the Senate votes for justices to see how it's only recently become the norm for opposition parties to unite against a nominee.  Taking out Borke, Thomas, and Kavanaugh who were controversial, Kagan had 63 votes, Roberts had 78 votes, Sotomayor had 68.  Moving back, Breyer had 87, Ginsberg 96, Souter 90, Kennedy 97 (unanimous), Scalia 98 (unanimous), O'Connor 99 (unanimous), Stevens 98 (unanimous).     Back in the middle of the 1900's they'd confirm Justices by voice vote!

Unfortunately, McConnell doesn't care about making this political and the way we are today, Dems will only retaliate if they get the chance.  This is who we are now.

[Neurotic Guy]

On another topic related to Breyer's replacement, Biden has indicated that he will nominate a Black woman.  I know many here will object to that type of "litmus test" based on race/gender but I am OK with it.  That said, I think it's unnecessary and not smart for Biden to say it.  He could easily say that he is exploring a number of highly qualified candidates, and then choose a Black woman.

[Celtics2021]

On another topic related to Breyer's replacement, Biden has indicated that he will nominate a Black woman.  I know many here will object to that type of "litmus test" based on race/gender but I am OK with it.  That said, I think it's unnecessary and not smart for Biden to say it.  He could easily say that he is exploring a number of highly qualified candidates, and then choose a Black woman.

He said it on the campaign trail trying to get endorsements in a tight race with Bernie.  It worked for him, he got some major endorsements to pull out South Carolina and ultimately the nomination and Presidency.  He'll lose a lot of political capital if he doesn't follow through.